Spatcher v. San Diego Sheriff Dept. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GREGORY LEON SPATCHER, Case No. 19-cv-1919-BAS-BLM 11 CDCR #BJ-9222, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SAN DIEGO SHERIFF DEP’T, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Gregory Leon Spatcher filed a first amended complaint on January 9, 19 2020. On January 27, 2020, the Court dismissed certain Defendants but permitted 20 the case to go forward against Defendants Lake and Escobar. (ECF No. 5.) The 21 Court ordered the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff blank U.S. Marshal Form 285s for 22 these two Defendants and ordered Plaintiff to fill out the forms and return them to 23 the United States Marshal for service. No proof of service was filed. On July 14, 24 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants have not been 25 served. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to the order informing the Court 26 whether and when he filled out and returned the U.S. Marshal Form 285s. His 27 response was due by August 7, 2020, and the Court noted: “Failure to timely respond 1 || Plaintiff did not respond. 2 “District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, ‘[i]n the 3 || exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 4 ||dismissal of a case.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.)), cert. denied, 6 ||475 U.S. 829 (1986); accord Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) 7 ||(holding courts are vested with an inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as 8 ||to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”) The circumstances in 9 || which a court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss an action include an action 10 ||where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case. Link, 370 U.S. at 630. In 11 ||determining whether to exercise this power, “the district court must weigh five 12 || factors, including: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 13 || the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 14 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 15 |\of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. 16 Defendants Lake and Escobar have not been served and Plaintiff has failed to 17 ||respond to the Court’s order explaining why service has not occurred. While the 18 ||Court prefers resolving cases on their merits, this case cannot proceed without 19 ||service. The Court finds the above factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Accordingly, 20 || the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to close 21 the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 / yy 24 || DATED: August 13, 2020 ( ill A (Haha 6 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28